The bush admin. got caught trying to plant wmd in Iraq.<br><br><br>New aspect of Valerie Plame/Brewster Jennings exposure revealed. According to U.S. intelligence sources, the White House exposure of Valerie Plame and her Brewster Jennings & Associates was intended to retaliate against the CIA's work in limiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. WMR has reported in the past on this aspect of the scandal. In addition to identifying the involvement of individuals in the White House who were close to key players in nuclear proliferation, the CIA Counter-Proliferation Division prevented the shipment of binary VX nerve gas from Turkey into Iraq in November 2002. The Brewster Jennings network in Turkey was able to intercept this shipment which was intended to be hidden in Iraq and later used as evidence that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. intelligence sources revealed that this was a major reason the Bush White House targeted Plame and her network.<br><br>Brewster Jennings <br><br>CIA counter-proliferation network prevented a WMD "salting" operation by Bush White House in Iraq. <br><br>In fact, U.S. intelligence sources report that the first shipment of VX nerve gas to Saddam Hussein was carried out between 1988 and 1989. The gas was shipped to Iraq by a U.S. company that was established in 1987 -- The Carlyle Group. <br><br>U.S. intelligence sources have also confirmed that Israeli military officers served unofficially with the U.S. Central Command headquarters in Baghdad. The Israelis were attached to the J2X (Joint Intelligence Liaison) in Baghdad. Their presence in Baghdad, according to the sources, was kept secret.<br><br><br>

Some other good stuff in there too!<br><br>http://waynemadsenreport.com/<br><br>Now if only the corporate media would do the job that they are supposed to do. <br><br>And still no mention in the amsm about the use of chemical weapons in Iraq by American forces. <br><br>

If the Bush administration "outed" Plame, then why didn't Fitzgerald indict anyone for it?<br><br>Oops! Looks like your argument is taking on water...it's about to sink....[i][b]MAYDAY!!! MAYDAY!!!!!<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>And still no mention in the amsm about the use of chemical weapons in Iraq by American forces.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I love how use of WP for screening, something that has been done by every army since it's invention, is now referred to as "chemical weapons". You dump some Wiley Pete to flush the enemy out of the hole, then hit them with high explosive rounds. <br><br>I also like how the photos posted on this attack look more like bodies that have sitting out in the hot desert sun for a few days, then actual people who have been hit by WP rounds:<br><br><br><br><br>These guys were shelled with WP by SLORC soliders. But I wonder, why don't you ever take up the cause for these poor folks from Burma? Don't care about them? But hey you've got an agenda, and like you used to say, keep saying it and it'll become true...<br><br>Thirdly, if WP killed everyone within a tenth of a mile, then why aren't you dead from attending 4th of July celebrations? There's plenty of phosphorus going off at those events.<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Well at this this time you can't deny the use of whiskey pete.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Why bother? They dumped some flares in to screen out the enemy. What's unbelieveable is how suddenly phosphorus flares are now "chemical weapons". <br><br>Perhaps you can brush up on the stuff, pay attention to the part that says "The dilute phosphoric acid in the aerosol cloud may be mildly irritating to the eyes but with normal field concentrations and exposure it is not harmful;" and pay particular attention to "Burns to persons struck by particles of burning WP are usually much less extensive than napalm or metal incendiary burns,<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Have you gone through these?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Oooooo. Dead bodies laying out in desert heat for a week. How shocking they'd look like that! There must be something sinister going on!<br><br>Do you have any that look like real WP wounds? Like those soldiers in Burma that were hit point blank with the stuff? Do we somehow have super WP? I mean, why weren't those Burmese folks melted and turned to leather? Oh, I know... they weren't laying out in the desert sun and being scavanged by dogs!<br><br>Perhaps the media hasn't picked up on the story... because there isn't one! Did you notice how the Al-Jazeera article says "napalm gas" was used? There is no such thing as napalm gas! And yet you link it as a credible source!!!<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Those unfortunate individuals look more like blackened bloated,<br>semi mummified, semi mortified partially rat chewed corpses.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Though I can't give out names because he'd probably get canned, I'm friends with a P.G. County cop (MD side of Washington D.C.) who has stacks full of photos he's taken when he arrives first at a crime scene. <br><br>There are plenty of photos he has of discovered bodies that you could post and say the same thing Zapata is trying to claim. They look like they were burned.. but in reality they were sitting out in a dumpster in the heat, leg or arm chewed through.<br><br>I had the unfortunate experience of seeing one first hand on a ride-along. I'll never forget it. I'm not easily shaken or bothered by death, but it's not something you forget either.<br><br>Even worse are some of things drug dealers will do to each other for kicks. People jumped and screamed about the guy shooting the injured insurgent? Bah. That was nuttin. <br><br>

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.